A suggestion:
Upgrade the multiplayer engine. Adding possible turnaments, ranking, teams and so on would definetely improve the multiplayer part of the game.
Also big maps, where multiple players can play at the same time - imagine armies with a player as general of that particular army.

Best wishes for a great PC2!
KongKrog

I second this sentiment 100 fold.

Please also make it possible to use Random/limited/and Chess rolls available for matches, as that seems to be a complaint of the play.

I know I feel bad when I see a super great roll, and super mad when I see a super good roll for my opponent.

Good Day All,
I have been called older than dirt and have enjoyed playing Panzer General (PG) since it came out. I also enjoy Panzer General 2 (PG 2) also as well as other SSI Products (Steel Panthers and Talonsoft's East/West Front Campaign series). I was really happy when I discovered Open General (OG) and still play. It is my "go to" when I need to do something I have always enjoyed. I have now moved into the Mac world of hardware. No PG, PG 2 or OG for the Mac (iMac for me). Panzer Corps was like coming home to a place I really enjoyed and a great discovery (I know it's bee out for a while but I do have a life in the RCAF) . And now a Panzer Corps 2, AWESOME. I really liked the changes and new background art work from Pg to PG 2.
Verstaubtgesicht makes all very good suggestions I think especially the "No 3D". I did buy the 'Panzer General 3D Assault and Scorched Earth games but they did not get the attention of PG 2. No 3D please.
DLM936 makes a point of something I'd really appreciate. Available for play on Mac's, would be really nice.
Other things for me to suggest:
- arty with realistic ranges, not all have only three hexes (75mm vs 150mm)
- tank guns with real differences, the 75 mm and the 88mm with the same range, really?
- allow deployment of unit throughout the game;
- allow over run attacks by appropriate unit (tank);
- Engineers which can actually repair or build something as in OG;
- damage from try or air attacks to terrain which inhibits movement I also believe is from OG.
This should be good for now,I'll post more as I think of them.

"Though I move through the valley of death I shall fear no evil, for I am wrapped in my Panther G"

PG3 was an improvement over PG2 because of the "action point" feature which allowed
units to combine realistic fire and maneuver attributes at the tactical level- only problem
it was based on action points for leadership levels (2 thru 10) rather than a fixed number
(like 6 maybe).
PC was terrible as a "blitzkrieg" game due to it's lack of any supply support linkage requirements. Biggest challenge is going to be choosing unit size(s) which will fix hex size
then artillery range.
I found PC to best fit as battalions, but had to increase artillery ranges to fit. OoB is most satisfying with units at the company/battery level where 3 infantry units (2 regular, 1 heavy) represented a battalion (with the heavy infantry having the HMGs and mortars attached).
If you go in the other direction to regiments/brigades you will need some way of "attaching" antitank/antiaircraft/assault guns/engineers/recon, etc. rather than explicitly representing them as separate units on the map. At this level (without stacking) I can see only 5 units:
infantry (w/attachments), armor (w/attachments), artillery, construction engineers, and
static/stationary heavy antiaircraft guns.

Maybe you should strengthen what made the original Panzer General successful and exciting: the "chess"-charakter of the game. In PanzerCorps, there are many scripted events which are nice at the first play but stand against the creativity of the player (solving the szenario in different / the best way) in the long run. One of my favourite scenarios in the original Panzer General was Norway: it gave the player several ways to conquer the map right from the start. Concentrate troops in the south? Or split them (south and north)? Slow advance or risky and fast "Blitzkrieg"?

At the same time, as a player you had to handle your units more carefully and the scenarios were more like a chess game.
While in PanzerCorps, there are more and more troops on the battle field and it's more like a clash of tons of equipment.
In Panzer General (without fog of war) you had to carefully plan your actions right from the start. Yes, I think that was what made it exciting. Planning your moves and experiencing if it worked. PanzerCorps is more like "waiting for the things to come and reacting in the right way from move to move. Micromanagement (Panzer Corps) vs. tactical planning (Panzer General). I know I exagerate things a little in order to get the message across.

Please add (at least) one unit: a Headquarters/Logistical vehicle or Command Post which all units must trace a friendly path to in order to receive supply or replacements.
This will convert the game from one of attrition based (circa WWI) to a modern "blitzkrieg" (circa WWII to present) game of maneuver by allowing units to be cut off from their
sustainment/main supply route (MSR/LOC).